Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 1):pretty obvious question this time, why have we just had STS-121 then its going on to STS-115?????? whats the reasoning behind the numerical designation

I believe that the numbers represent the order that the missions were originally planned to go up - quite often one mission will slip (eg due to satelite not being ready) and a differant mission will go before it but the numbers remain the same.

i see. so we have STS-116, STS-117, STS-118, STS-119, STS-120 all still to come?

i haven't seen many shuttle launches I'm afraid. first one i can actually remember was Columbia blowing up.

odd how you can remember exactly what you were doing when something bad happens isn't it. normally have a memory like a fish but i remember i was playing a computer game while watching sky news for the shuttle landing. weird thing is i can remember the level i was on and even the position i was in... but i digress

and i think its only been discovery from then??? Atlantis will be a nice change!

Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 1):why have we just had STS-121 then its going on to STS-115?????? whats the reasoning behind the numerical designation

NASA officially assigns STS mission numbers about a year out. Before that, the numbers are only planning numbers and can be changed as necessary. After the STS number is formally assigned, official documentation starts to be built saying, for example, STS-115 will be carrying the Integrated Truss segment P3 and P4. To change the numbers after that point would be expensive, time consuming, and possibly risky (i.e., a part meant for P3/P4 doesn't get on Atlantis because the mission had been redesignated STS-116, but some subcontractor didn't get the memo.)

STS-121 was added to the Shuttle schedule after the Columbia accident when it became clear that all of the Return-to-Flight activities couldn't be achieved on a single Shuttle mission. There were too many spacewalks to test tile repairs, and the Space Station needed more resupply than one mission could handle. STS-121 was added to the Shuttle schedule after STS-115, STS-116, STS-117, STS-118, STS-119, and STS-120 had already gotten their formal mission numbers.

STS-114 was already a resupply mission so it was fairly easy to add many of the Return-to-Flight requirements to that mission. But STS-115 is carrying P3/P4 and was already maxed out on Shuttle payload capability (so much so that it is only carrying six crew instead of seven.) Adding the second half of the Return-to-Flight activities to STS-115 was out of the question, so NASA inserted a new mission between STS-114 and STS-115, and assigned it the first mission number that hadn't already been firmly assigned: 121.

NASA also sometimes changes the order of future missions in order to meet payload requirements. STS-119, for example, has been pushed back until after STS-124 (and probably STS-125, if the Hubble mission is approved) to get the European and Japanese Space Station modules up sooner.

now.. if something was to go wrong again, obviously we all hope it wont. if another shuttle was too be dispatched, what would happen. im just guessing that if another orbiter was lost the whole idea would be scrapped?? are there any shuttle replacements in the pipeline. going to be built and tested any time soon. or are they just going to cross the bridge when they come to it.

Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 3):
and i think its only been discovery from then??? Atlantis will be a nice change!

Atlantis was supposed to fly STS-121, back when launch was planned for September, 2005. The long delay caused by foam problems and Hurricane Katrina allowed NASA to substitute Discovery and save Atlantis for the heavier STS-115.

Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 6):if another shuttle was too be dispatched, what would happen. im just guessing that if another orbiter was lost the whole idea would be scrapped??

NASA Administrator Griffin said last month that another major accident, fatal or not, would probably lead him to recommend shutting down the Space Shuttle Program. (Although I highly doubt the decision would be his to make, Congress would probably balk at continuing it.)

Technically, there is no particular reason a two-Orbiter fleet couldn't finish out the program.

Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 6):are there any shuttle replacements in the pipeline.

No. After the Columbia accident, Boeing made a very interesting proposal to build a fleet of Mk.II Space Shuttles, using the same aerodynamic design as the Enterprise-class, plus all of the upgrades made to them over the years, but with a radically improved internal and engineering design. NASA declined the offer.

The Shuttle's successor for human spaceflight is the Crew Exploration Vehicle, rumored to about to be named "Project Orion". Orion will be launched on a new rocket based on the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster and called Ares I. Cargo missions to the Space Station are to be delegated to commercial operators.

Okay, technically the existing Shuttle Orbiters are the OV-1xx series. Boeing offered to build a better OV-2xx series. I occasionally refer to the OV-1xx series after the first vehicle in the class, Enterprise (OV-101.)

NASA wants to minimize the gap between Shuttle retirement and first flight of Orion. Shuttle's retirement in 2010 seems pretty firm, but first flight of Orion is all over the map. Probably 2013. Slim chance of 2012. NASA would like 2011, but they haven't even selected the winning contractor yet (that's scheduled for September, but there are rumors of yet another delay.)

The current likely schedule is for abort test launches using boilerplate spacecraft (structurally accurate and correctly balanced mockups) atop surplus MX missiles in late 2008. First flight of the Ares I in 2009 (with a dummy upper stage and another boilerplate) and all-up in 2010, probably as a high-altitude abort test. There will be at least one unmanned orbital flight, probably in 2012, followed by first manned flight (going to ISS) in 2013. Additional funding, which some in Congress are championing, could accelerate that timetable a little, but not a lot.

Out of interest, considering Boeing only gained its Shuttle experience through the purchase of the Rocketdyne section of Rockwell in 1996, how much of that experience was retained considering there had been no major structural development on a Shuttle airframe since Endeavour was constructed? Was this a factor in turning down an OV-2xx?

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 10):Boeing only gained its Shuttle experience through the purchase of the Rocketdyne section of Rockwell in 1996,

Well, Rocketdyne was the engine division of Rockwell. The Shuttles (and B-1s) came from the North American division. Boeing still occasionally mentions the North American name, but it seems to be moribund.

No, after Columbia, NASA (read Sean O'Keefe) seems to have run as fast and as far as it could from anything with wings. Even the Orbital Space Plane (which could probably have been now close to making its first flight, alas) was killed in favor of the semi-ballistic capsule approach of CEV, and OSP was just a lifting body, not a winged ship. No matter, simple and reliable was the order of the day. Boeing's Orbiter Mk.II never had a chance, but an OV-2xx series using Liquid Flyback Boosters, well... its interesting to think what a system like that would have been capable of.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 7):After the Columbia accident, Boeing made a very interesting proposal to build a fleet of Mk.II Space Shuttles, using the same aerodynamic design as the Enterprise-class, plus all of the upgrades made to them over the years, but with a radically improved internal and engineering design

Is there anywhere I could find more information on such a vehicle or did it never reach the public domain?

Quoting TPAnx (Thread starter):Let's hope for another great flight about August 28th..hope to be on the mound for it.

Garh! I think that might be when I have to go with my school to some outdoor camp before classes start for a couple of days!

Quoting Thorny (Reply 7):No. After the Columbia accident, Boeing made a very interesting proposal to build a fleet of Mk.II Space Shuttles,

Speaking of new shuttles...anyone ever see the movie Armeggedon? It's with Bruce Willis and stuff where they have to fly to this asteroid and destroy it before it hits earth...well anyways you guys remember those 2 special kind of space shuttles they used? If Nasa wanted to could they building something just like that and send it to the moon and back instead of this new Crew Exploration Viechle, or after this will we never see a new Space Shuttle type of thing for Nasa?

Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.

Quoting Mke717spotter (Reply 14):anyone ever see the movie Armeggedon? It's with Bruce Willis and stuff where they have to fly to this asteroid and destroy it before it hits earth...well anyways you guys remember those 2 special kind of space shuttles they used? If Nasa wanted to could they building something just like that and send it to the moon and back instead of this new Crew Exploration Viechle,

It's all about weight, or rather mass. The Shuttle Orbiters weigh 180,000 lbs. or so empty. The entire Apollo 17 stack (Command Module and Lunar Module) was only 110,000 lbs. or so. Every pound you send to escape velocity generally requires about 2 pounds of fuel for the burn (the S-IVB stage on Apollo was around 200,000 lbs.) Yes, you could probably come up with a way to fly the Shuttles to the Moon if you really wanted to, but it would be horribly inefficient, and the standard Shuttles would have to get even heavier, due to stronger heat shield materials and deep space comm, etc. Even CEV seems to be a little on the heavy side for what it is meant to do.

And of course, "Armageddon's" Freedom and Independence were strictly Hollywood creations, with the infinite fuel capacity that is standard for Hollywood spacecraft (but hey, they filled up with more LOX at the Russian Space Station!). A much more realistic depiction of a deep space manned spacecraft for that purpose is the Messiah in "Deep Impact", and even that is pretty Hollywood-ized. At least it didn't defy the laws of physics very seriously.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 17):What will happen once the station is completed with the last shuttle mission? Will the US then rely on the russians to get their people on the ISS?

I think that before that Crew Exploration Viechle starts headin for the moon it will be making flights to the ISS with supplies and to change astronauts aboard the ISS. I'm guessing they will still keep flying to resuply the ISS.

- So does anyone think we'll ever see some kind of new space shuttle type thing from Nasa or is it justgonna be regular rocket from now on?

Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 17):What will happen once the station is completed with the last shuttle mission? Will the US then rely on the russians to get their people on the ISS?

Yes, the U.S. Congress amended the Iran Nuclear Nonproliferation Act last year to allow NASA to purchase flights on Soyuz through 2012.

Quoting Mke717spotter (Reply 18):
I think that before that Crew Exploration Viechle starts headin for the moon it will be making flights to the ISS with supplies and to change astronauts aboard the ISS.

NASA has officially advanced the launch of STS-115 one day, to August 27.
The move was made possible after studying lighting conditions at External Tank seperation, a requirement for this mission due to post-Columbia safety rules.